C. S. Peirce’s Dialogical Conception of Sign Processes

Abstract

This article examines the contention that the central concepts of C. S. Peirce's semeiotic are inherently communicational. It is argued that the Peircean approach avoids the pitfalls of objectivism and constructivism, rendering the sign-user neither a passive recipient nor an omnipotent creator of meaning. Consequently, semeiotic may serve as a useful general framework for studies of learning processes.

Archaic man meets a marvellous automaton: posthumanism, social robots, archetypes

“…It is a semiotic object in a sense akin to C.S. Pierce's, in whose theory the semiotic object functions as a ‘repository of ideas or significant forms' (Pierce [1907] quoted in Bergman , p. 224) and has a triadic structure (real object–sign–interpreter). I use the phrase more loosely.…”

Experience in Design and Learning Approaches – Enhancing the Framework for Experience

“…(On the relation of social constructivism and trialogical learning, see Hakkarainen & Paavola, 2005.). However, if Peirce's theory of signs is viewed from the perspective of communication (Bergman, 2005(Bergman, , 2013, it is possible to find similar social and collaborative stances, which is emphasised in trialogical learning. The connections between Peirce and Dewey provide the basis for my approach, in which Peirce's phaneroscopic categories of Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness exemplify the role of experiences, doubt and common ground in the first phases of Dewey's reflection process.…”

Experience, Purpose, and the Value of Vagueness: On C. S. Peirce's Contribution to the Philosophy of Communication

“…On the other hand, Peirce's approach suggests that the dynamics of dialogue permeates human understanding and self-control, as it involves the interaction of temporally distinguishable selves. See Bergman (2004), for an extensive study of the underpinnings of Peirce's sign-theoretical project; see also Bergman (2000Bergman ( , 2003Bergman ( , 2005. 14 This is not to say that we should not seek clearer conceptions of communication; nor do I wish to suggest that ''communication'' would be an unproblematic concept.…”

“…This does not mean that one‐on‐one dialogue is the ideal form of all sign use—not even of all such semiotic processes that are ordinarily classified as “communicational.” On the other hand, Peirce's approach suggests that the dynamics of dialogue permeates human understanding and self‐control, as it involves the interaction of temporally distinguishable selves. See Bergman (2004), for an extensive study of the underpinnings of Peirce's sign‐theoretical project; see also Bergman (2000, 2003, 2005).…”

“…In this sense, the utterer and the interpreter are analytical abstractions that designate different functions in communicational transactions. Peirce sometimes suggests that the very concepts of object and interpretant are derivable in this way (see Bergman 2003, 2004, 2005 for discussions of this communicational “derivation” of the basic concepts of semeiotic).…”